3. Damn right

Obama should never have put chained-cpi on the table. He keeps negotiating like this and we keep getting screwed by his negotiating style. Even you were outraged. Even you.

...I was outraged. The fact is that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, and cuts are unacceptable. Not a dollar.

Having said that, the offer presented was never going to go anywhere. It wasn't even formally unveiled. It was leaked as part of the negotiations. The President and everyone needed to hear the outrage. It needed to happen.

2. Oh yeah?

The President made a reckless offer. Boehner failed to rally support for his own even more extreme option, because republicans think that it is not extreme enough.
The only thing to celebrate is that they didn't say yes to Obama's proposal. (Some on DU are saying it was all a bluff and Obama knew it all along; yeah, right!)

5. Ah,

"The only thing to celebrate is that they didn't say yes to Obama's proposal."

...bullshit! On what planet did you even envision Boehner accepting the deal as outlined? At least you see something to "celebrate," but there is more: The only thing on the table now is the Senate bill and CPI is dead!

4. The genie is out of the bottle. His offer was for the world to see.

6. Yeah,

"The genie is out of the bottle. His offer was for the world to see."

...the genie got smacked down by everyone. No one wants it, not the AEI, AFL-CIO, AARP...no one. It sparked outrage, and a lot of people learned more about something that was up to now being sold by spin.

11. Negotiation is an art. Those who have to say 'let's burn the house down' to draw attention are

and please forgive me, not the sharpest cats around. Both sides did that. Offering chained CPI-as Pelosi did on TV- was a tactic that no ethical negotiator would use unless they meant they'd really do it.
The other thing is this: if you make use of others without letting them know as part of your negotiation quiver ie elders, disabled, etc then you do not have the right to celebrate until you have made amends, inform those whose fear served as your bargaining chip that it was just theatrics, and reward them for what you have put them through. Exploitation of the least among us as props in a dramatic display intended to go no where is not right, no matter what the outcome. If one must do that which is not right to win, then once one has won, they owe those they treated wrongly to some balance, respect, and truth. If that last part does not happen swiftly, then the theatrics might not have been theatrics. No drama just did a big giant drama, that's what you are saying, and elders were props in that play.
Those elders deserve nothing but our respect, honor and protection. Scaring the bejesus out of them to make your political rival look bad means you owe them. It also means you can never, ever do it again. That's part of the 'gee sorry to use your last $20 to make sure I can get on a plane in time for vacation'.
I've been in many negotiations. Yes, occasionally one does make a big fake stink to play the other side. But if that fake stink involves pointing at the innocent and saying they will pay, you have to make amends for that once the need for the fake moves is passed. If it is not passed, do not celebrate. If it has passed, make things right with those misused in the process, THEN celebrate.
It was wrong to use that as a chip in the 'make Republicans look like Republicans show' . Intrinsically wrong. It is like using a threat of violence to get what one wants, it might work, but it is still wrong.

13. That's nothing new.

Everyone is reacting to a leak of the negotiations, and the WH confirmed that Boehner brought it to the table and the President included it, tentatively until the detail could be worked out, that is the part about protecting the most vulnerable and exempting key parts of the program. That's it. The fact still remains the President didn't make Boehner an offer he could accept.

There is no way that proposal passes the House, and evidently Boehner was also bluffing because he didn't include it in his own proposal.

Obviously it wasn't a serious offer, and both sides were playing set up.

"The other thing is this: if you make use of others without letting them know as part of your negotiation quiver ie elders, disabled, etc then you do not have the right to celebrate until you have made amends, inform those whose fear served as your bargaining chip that it was just theatrics, and reward them for what you have put them through. "

Imagine how those excluded from the New Deal felt. Negotions always involve people's lives, and even positive movement will produce unhappy results. That happened with health care reform.

It happened when CHIP passed in the 1990, but that has been rectified since 2009 and with the health care law.

Obama Signs Children’s Health Insurance Bill

<...>

In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.

Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.